Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 360 - AT - Income TaxMAT - Provision of leave encashment - whether an ascertained liability & need not to be added back to the book profits u/s 115 JB as held by CIT(A) - Minimum alternate tax - Held that:- The principles laid down in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. V Their Workmen [1968 (8) TMI 53 - SUPREME Court] are relevant for our purpose to understand whether such provision for leave encashment would constitute ascertained liability or not which clearly show that the provision for leave encashment would constitute a liability and if the same has been determined on the basis of actuarial valuation then same cannot be considered as unascertained liability. Accordingly nothing wrong in the order of the CIT(A) and confirm the same. In favour of assessee. Provision for staff incentive - whether an unascertained liability or not? - MAT - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case wherein no evidence has been filed before AO in respect of particular policy followed by the assessee- company in respect of staff incentive. The copy of scheme has also not been filed. However, at the same time the AO also rejected the issue summarily without asking for the scheme for incentive claimed from the assessee and the CIT(A) allowed the relief without examining the scheme. Therefore remand the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to re-examine the issue after obtaining the scheme of staff incentive from the assessee. In favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Provision for gratuity - whether an unascertained liability or not? - MAT provisions - Held that:- Once a particular liability is determined on the basis of actuarial valuation then same can not be treated as unascertained liability. Secondly as decided in J.C.I.T. (OSD) V. Shreyans Industries Ltd. (2012 (7) TMI 150 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) in view of insertion of clause (i) in Explanation 1 to section 115JB (2) with retrospective effective from 1.4.2001, Assessing Officer was not justified in his action in treating it as unascertained liability. In favour of assessee.
|